Tragedy of the commons

I came across a very interesting phrase the other day – ‘tragedy of the commons’. I had never heard it before but apparently it refers to situations in which people, acting in their individual short term interests, make choices that are detrimental to society as a whole.

Referring to Wikipedia, which reads, inter alia: “The metaphor illustrates the argument that free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately reduces the resource through over-exploitation, temporarily or permanently. This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals or groups, each of whom is motivated to maximize use of the resource to the point in which they become reliant on it, while the costs of the exploitation are borne by all those to whom the resource is available (which may be a wider class of individuals than those who are exploiting it).”

Now who doesn’t this statement apply to? Not many I suspect! How many people in influential positions such politicians; many bureaucrats; many investment bankers, quite a few businessmen and many others would have been, or are, involved in situations which could be termed ‘tragedies of the commons’?

This “tragedy of the commons’, could refer to the misuse of the public purse (a ‘common’ in that it belongs to us all) which is a finite resource. It could also refer to trust.

The first of two issues (totally divergent) in the Australian context which immediately spring to mind is the case of the misuse of public funds by the (now former) Western Australian Treasurer, Troy Buswell. He admitted to using public funds (the ‘common’) to finance an affair – for which offence he has been sacked as minister. He misused a ‘common’, exploited it, for his own benefit. For this we all suffer because of the loss of funds (apparently re-paid) and also for the loss of trust that results from this ‘tragedy of the commons’. It raises the question, “What else has happened that we have not been told about?” This is a both a matter of ethics and morals or, as in this case, a lack thereof.

Secondly, in the Australian context, is the even worse situation relating to the postponement (cancellation?) of the much touted Emissions Trading Scheme. I suspect that vested (big business at the ‘top-end’ of town) were behind this tragedy. Australia (and the World) has finite resources in that potable water, good quality soil, creatures in the sea (and the quality of sea water itself) and forested areas (commons) are all at such low levels that any further diminution will seriously affect our quality of life. More of the same, without some concerted action, will cost us all a great deal more at some future date than any current implementation would ever cost.

This is, again, a matter of ethics and morals – or the lack thereof. Vested interests and short term financial and political expediency have resulted in this loss (hopefully only temporarily) of any carbon emissions control. Surely something is better than nothing? No one will ever get the perfect mix of controls, with such a massively complex matter as carbon reduction, at the first attempt. I believe it would be best to implement a reasonably well thought out scheme, acknowledge that it may have failings and leave sufficient ‘wriggle room’ to implement changes as they are seen to be necessary. This is indeed a ‘tragedy of the commons’ and again, we are all likely to suffer and to lose more than we currently contemplate.